My fix has always been: that's fine! They go off on their own adventures. Now please roll a character that's going to play the game we're running here tonight.

I learned as a GM to set expectations. "I don't want to have to fight and force you in to making this game work, because even though I'm GMing, I'd like to enjoy myself too. You need to create a character that will want to stick around with the rest of the group. You don't have to all get on, or have deep attachments, you just need a character that I won't have to railroad"

> they should not meet in session 1. Strongly disagree. Nothing wrong with doing that, but nothing wrong with having them meet in session 1 too, as long as you have built characters who will be willing to go along with the GM's hooks. And even that part is flexible, depending on the nature of the hook. If the hook is "you see an ad look for rat exterminators", then you better have a character who wants to be an adventurer and will cooperate with other would-be adventurers. If the hook is "you're prisoners being ordered to go explore this dungeon by order of the vizier", there's room for slightly less cooperative PCs, as long as you PC is cooperative *enough* to go along with that order, even if (at first) reluctantly.

I just don't DM for people like that anymore. Oh god I might when my kids and their friends are older though. This is why you gotta raise em right.

The whole *We play a game so you have to cooperate together even if role-play wise it makes no sense* is a bad practice, May-be not at the point you'll leave the table but definitely a serious sign that the table doesn't function properly. Luckily, there is a very easy fix *Do a session zero, and build a coherent party ab initio*, it include in game reason for the party to work together, coherent goals (because when player A wants to abolish the reign of the emperor, and player B wants to defend the emperor you'll have a PvP fight within 3 session) and a meta discussion to have a pallet of skills matching the party's goal (At least in more epic game where you don't want to feel powerless). Almost every RPG published in the last 10-15 years contains an extensive session zero guide and tons of tips to build a relevant party. If someone wants to play a *law priest in a pirate campaign* or any other character not fitting the campaign theme or opposing other PCs, it's perfectly OK to tell the no. Obviously if everybody is aligned on some PvP and betrayal the answer may be different, but it's again something to address in session zero.

That's why it's pretty common in Shadowrun to just have everyone be kidnapped and fitted with a bomb in their skull. If their character doesn't want to cooperate, you activate the player's brain bomb.

This post did not contain any content.

I recently tried to DM for my son and his friends. One of his friends insisted he wanted to be a DM. I tried to gently encourage him to allow me to DM for them, and he would have much more fun as a player. Nope, he insisted, and like a good DM, I let him discover for himself why he was wrong. It was fun to be a player character, and they all learned a lot about running a game, so wins all around.

I just don't DM for people like that anymore. Oh god I might when my kids and their friends are older though. This is why you gotta raise em right.

If your character has no reason to stay either the plothook was insufficient or you made a bad character. Both should be adressed ooc.

I learned as a GM to set expectations. "I don't want to have to fight and force you in to making this game work, because even though I'm GMing, I'd like to enjoy myself too. You need to create a character that will want to stick around with the rest of the group. You don't have to all get on, or have deep attachments, you just need a character that I won't have to railroad"

I learned as a GM to set expectations. "I don't want to have to fight and force you in to making this game work, because even though I'm GMing, I'd like to enjoy myself too. You need to create a character that will want to stick around with the rest of the group. You don't have to all get on, or have deep attachments, you just need a character that I won't have to railroad"

I just don't DM for people like that anymore. Oh god I might when my kids and their friends are older though. This is why you gotta raise em right.

I'm a big fan of "you all wake up in loincloths sitting in a wagon, hands bound" and as long as someone at the table can roll higher than a 1, they can break free. Or something attacks them while they're all in a tavern Basically I'm a fan of "you *could* ignore having your shit kicked in, but *will* you?" since so many players would stop at nothing. Fallout NV had the right idea. "Where's that little fucker who shot me in the head?!"

I GM public games and games at conventions, so sometimes it still crops up. People don't always make it readily apparent ahead of game time that they're going to pull shenanigans like this.

That's fair. I'm really picky with my games.

I started running games for my wife and her niblings, and the oldest boy is getting into that "I'm such a rebel" phase where they think they're bad ass for taking slightly longer to do a chore than needed and say "no" the first time you ask them to do something. He thought it was hilarious to have a character that refused to join the rest of the group, so I said "okay, you can stay at the inn if you want" and then proceeded to intentionally ignore anything he was saying or doing, leaving him out of rolls, and never addressing him. He's 12 and started literally crying to his mother about how we're all being mean to him. Apparently "he had the opportunity to participate and chose not to" wasn't a good enough response to his mother. I stand by my choice. Although my wife managed to convince me to let him "rejoin" at the next town/session. He doesn't pull that shit anymore though, when he's playing he's playing or he gets shut out again. Genuine question to anyone reading: does that make me a bad DM? If so, suggestions on how to handle it?

I learned as a GM to set expectations. "I don't want to have to fight and force you in to making this game work, because even though I'm GMing, I'd like to enjoy myself too. You need to create a character that will want to stick around with the rest of the group. You don't have to all get on, or have deep attachments, you just need a character that I won't have to railroad"

Tell him "look, this game isn't about being a Total Badass By Yourself. It's about working with your team and overcoming challenges you couldn't otherwise. If you wanna be a Total Badass By Yourself, there are games you can play. But if you wanna play *this*, you're gonna have to work with me here. Because my time and effort is valuable, and I want to have fun just like you do.

I really need to do some kind of team building exercise before a game, something that they'll *want* to do, but requires teamwork, just to demonstrate the point that they need to work together. When my first character did the whole "I'm gonna be all by myself because I'm a lone wolf" thing, the DM let me go off and the *totally unexpected* happened and my character got into a scuffle he wasn't prepared for, but a group sure would have been.